09 The Overall Outcomes and Impacts on the Livelihoods of Coastal Communities in Blue Gold Polders

From Blue Gold Program Wiki
Revision as of 11:24, 19 December 2021 by Kitty.bentvelsen (talk | contribs) (→‎Changes in total household income)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This chapter focuses on the overall outcomes and impacts of Blue Gold Program interventions on the livelihoods of the coastal communities in BGP polders. The chapter includes the changes of demographic composition, the gender of the household head over the time of BGP, the level of education of the household head and the school enrolment of children to explore the general features of coastal households. The income flow of the households and the stock of household assets are emphasized as the important components of rural people’s livelihood, in that it can be converted into other forms of capital or used for the direct achievement of livelihood outcomes. Income-earning sectors identify the income flows into the household, such as from crop cultivation and non-agricultural income sectors. The aggregate household income provides a useful indicator of economic security. This chapter also focuses on the living standard through the condition of dwelling, access to water for domestic use and sanitation and consumption pattern and food security. The income, poverty ranking and asset data offer an opportunity to cross-check the reporting bias and to examine the balance struck by households between consumption pattern, investment in agricultural and non-agricultural sectors and pursuing different livelihood strategies for a secure livelihood. As such, its availability is directly related to the capacity of a household to withstand or buffer livelihood shocks, and to achieve improvements in overall well-being. The main source of the data used in this chapter is the endline survey of 2020, as reported upon in Technical Report 27, complemented with data from the household survey 2021[Notes 1] reported in Technical Report 29.

General features of coastal households[edit | edit source]

Household composition[edit | edit source]

The average family size is 4.4, which has reduced by 2 points as compared to the baseline 2017. There is a significant difference in the average size of households among the different types of land holding households.

Table 9.1: Household composition (n=3,969 hhs)

Zone % of HH Average size of household Female headed HH
Men women child* Total
Khulna 39.6% 1.74 1.70 0.86 4.31 4.9%
Satkhira 24.7% 1.72 1.60 0.77 4.09 4.7%
Patuakhali 35.6% 1.92 1.83 1.09 4.84 5.7%
Land- ownership
landless 19.7% 1.47 1.52 0.98 3.97 6.8%
marginal 41.0% 1.78 1.67 0.93 4.38 5.4%
small 30.2% 1.94 1.82 0.89 4.65 4.3%
medium 7.8% 2.09 2.04 0.88 5.01 3.2%
large 1.3% 2.19 2.17 0.81 5.17 1.9%
Total 100.0% 1.80 1.72 0.92 4.44 5.1%
* upto and including 12 years;Source: Endline survey 2020

Data shows as well-being improves from the landless to the large farmer, household sizes become significantly larger from 3.9 to 5.2. The average number of male and female members within the households is very similar with a slightly higher average number of male members. The average number of children is around 1. Overall, only 5.1% of the households are female headed, which has increased 1.5 points compared to baseline 2017. Female-headed households are more prevalent (6.8%) in the landless household category while lowest (1.9%) in the large farm households. Informal interviews found that husbands of many women of the poor group in the rural areas work and reside outside their villages for a certain period within a year.

Educational status of the household members[edit | edit source]

Among the members of the sampled households, more than 46% completed their primary education while around 20% of members are illiterate or can sign only. Table 9.2 for the educational status of the household head also indicates the education accomplishment of the household heads with 41% having primary education while 37% of them do not have any formal education.

Table 9.2: Educational level of all members of the households

Zone Primary Secondar SSC HSC Graduate & above Illiterate & can sign only Under school age Religious education & others Total
Khulna 42.3% 8.0% 9.2% 6.1% 4.2% 21.1% 8.7% 0.3% 100.0%
Patuakhali 48.7% 6.8% 7.0% 5.3% 3.4% 19.4% 8.9% 0.6% 100.0%
Satkhira 49.6% 5.5% 7.2% 6.4% 2.9% 16.2% 9.9% 2.4% 100.0%
Land- ownership
landless 49.6% 5.2% 4.8% 2.5% 1.4% 26.1% 10.2% 0.3% 100.0%
marginal 48.9% 6.6% 6.8% 4.3% 2.2% 22.0% 8.5% 0.7% 100.0%
small 44.0% 8.2% 9.5% 7.8% 4.6% 16.5% 8.8% 0.6% 100.0%
medium 38.3% 9.9% 12.0% 10.4% 10.6% 10.4% 7.8% 0.6% 100.0%
large 31.2% 6.3% 15.2% 10.4% 12.6% 14.1% 10.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Total 46.3% 7.2% 7.9% 5.7% 3.7% 19.8% 8.9% 0.6% 100.0%
source: Endline survey 2020

Table 9.3: Educational level of household head (n-3,969)

Zone Primary Secondary SSC HSC Graduate & above Illiterate & can sign only Under school age Religious education & others Total
Khulna 37.6% 7.8% 9.3% 4.5% 4.9% 35.6% 0.0% 0.2% 100.0%
Patuakhali 44.5% 5.0% 6.4% 3.6% 2.7% 37.7% 0.0% 0.1% 100.0%
Satkhira 43.3% 7.9% 5.4% 4.4% 3.4% 35.5% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Land- ownership
landless 41.2% 4.0% 4.2% 1.3% 0.9% 48.3% 0.0% 0.1% 100.0%
marginal 43.3% 5.2% 5.2% 2.6% 1.6% 41.7% 0.1% 0.2% 100.0%
small 42.3% 8.1% 9.6% 5.9% 4.9% 29.2% 0.0% 0.1% 100.0%
medium 34.7% 10.1% 16.2% 8.8% 15.3% 14.6% 0.0% 0.3% 100.0%
large 28.8% 7.7% 30.8% 13.5% 7.7% 11.5% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Total 41.7% 6.2% 7.5% 4.0% 3.6% 36.7% 0.0% 0.2% 100.0%
Source: Endline survey 2020

The level of education of the household members and household heads do not vary significantly among the zones. However, it varies considerably with the land ownership categories.

Table 9.4: Primary school student enrolment (6-14 years) (n=3,137)

Zone Enrolled Unenrolled Total
Khulna 93.4% 6.6% 100.0%
Patuakhali 95.1% 4.9% 100.0%
Satkhira 98.4% 1.6% 100.0%
Land- ownership
landless 93.8% 6.2% 100.0%
marginal 94.2% 5.8% 100.0%
small 95.6% 4.4% 100.0%
medium 96.2% 3.8% 100.0%
large 96.6% 3.4% 100.0%
Total 94.7% 5.3% 100.0%

Source: Endline survey 2020

Table 9.2 and 9.3 show that the educational attainment in terms of the level of education of the household members and head is positively correlated with the size of land ownership. The percentages of completion of secondary, SSC and HSC level education are higher for the medium and large farm households compared to the landless and marginal land holding category.

Overall, a considerable percentage (94.8%) of the school enrolment of children is visible among the zones and all types of households, while it was highest (98.4%) in Satkhira compared to the lowest 93.3% in Khulna (see Table 9.4). The trend does not vary significantly among different types of households. The percentage of sending children to school increases rapidly due to the initiatives of government and NGOs. The school enrolment of children percentage has increased by 1% compared to the baseline survey 2017. However, the long-term closure of all schools due to COVID-19 reportedly also led to an increase in numbers of school drop-outs.

Occupation of adult male[edit | edit source]

Table 9.5 shows that 28.5% of adult males have agriculture as their main occupation, with a total of 37.5% having an occupation related to agriculture including livestock, poultry rearing and fisheries (4.4%), and agricultural labour (4.6%). On the other hand, around 44% of men have non-agricultural activities as their main occupation. Males from medium and large farm households are more likely to take agricultural activities as the main occupation, while the males of landless and smallholder households tend to have non-agricultural activities as the mainSource of their livelihoods. Approximately 20% of males are from the dependent group who are not engaged in any income-earning activities.

Table 9.5: Main occupation of adult male (n=6445)

Zone agriculture Livestock, poultry, fish Agri. wage labour sub-total agriculture Artisan/ handicraft Business, services Non-agri. labour Transport other sub-total non-agri. Student Not working Sub total non-earning Total
Khulna 30.4% 4.0% 5.5% 39.9% 1.4% 23.7% 11.8% 3.3% 0.4% 40.6% 10.6% 8.9% 19.5% 100.0%
Patuakha-li 26.8% 5.1% 4.3% 36.2% 1.5% 21.0% 18.0% 4.9% 0.4% 45.8% 10.2% 8.0% 18.2% 100.0%
Satkhira 31.9% 0.0% 1.7% 33.6% 0.6% 24.3% 12.7% 6.5% 0.3% 44.4% 11.3% 10.7% 22.0% 100.0%
Land ownership
landless 12.6% 4.9% 9.4% 26.9% 2.0% 17.3% 32.1% 8.3% 0.5% 60.2% 6.4% 6.4% 12.8% 100.0%
marginal 23.3% 4.0% 6.8% 34.1% 1.9% 22.0% 18.8% 5.2% 0.2% 48.1% 9.7% 8.1% 17.8% 100.0%
small 38.9% 4.1% 1.1% 44.1% 0.8% 23.2% 7.3% 2.4% 0.5% 34.2% 12.8% 8.9% 21.7% 100.0%
medium 37.8% 5.8% 0.0% 43.6% 0.2% 28.9% 1.4% 1.4% 0.7% 32.6% 12.7% 11.1% 23.8% 100.0%
large 48.1% 6.6% 0.9% 55.6% 0.0% 19.8% 0.0% 1.9% 0.0% 21.7% 7.5% 15.1% 22.6% 100.0%
Total 28.5% 4.4% 4.6% 37.5% 1.4% 22.2% 15.3% 4.4% 0.4% 43.7% 10.4% 8.5% 18.9% 100.0%
Source: Endline survey 2020

Around 35% of adult males reported that they have a secondary occupation. From them, 67% have an agriculture-related occupation. Along with agriculture, a significant percentage (26.7%) have livestock, poultry and fisheries as their second occupation. Besides, around 31% of males undertake non-agricultural activities to support their earningSources, which mainly include business or services and non-agricultural labour. In the case of adult women, the endline survey 2020 showed that women of 81% households are classified as housewives; however, the household survey 2021 showed that over 99% of the surveyed women were economically active (for more details, see chapter 8, table 8.3).

Land ownership and land tenure[edit | edit source]

Changes in land ownership[edit | edit source]

In all surveys of BGP, households have been classified according to the total amount of land owned. As poor households tend to have little or no land, this is a useful indicator of the general level of poverty. Households have been classified according to the following land ownership groups and the percentage of households in each category according to the impact survey 2020.

  • Landless – owning less than 5 decimals (0.02 ha)- 20% of households
  • Marginal farmer: 5 to 49 decimals (0.02 to 0.2 ha)- 41% of households
  • Small farmer: 50 to 249 decimals (0.2 to 1.01 ha)- 30% of households
  • Medium farmer: 250 to 749 decimals (1.01 to 3.03 ha)- 8% of households
  • Large farmer: 750 decimals and above (3.04 ha and above)-1% of households

These same categories were used in the baseline surveys and are nationally recognized. Data on the landless category in Table 9.6 is further subdivided into those households who own absolutely no land at all and those who have some land but under 5 decimals. However, under 2% of project households fall into the absolutely landless category.

Table 9.6: Land ownership categories

Zone Land ownership categories in decimals, 2020. Percentage of all households
no land under 5 5-49 50-249 250-749 750+ Total
Khulna 1.0% 19.7% 43.1% 27.7% 7.7% 0.8% 100.0%
Satkhira 3.0% 32.0% 38.1% 20.5% 5.1% 1.4% 100.0%
Patuakhali 0.8% 7.1% 40.7% 39.9% 9.7% 1.8% 100.0%
total 1.4% 18.3% 41.0% 30.2% 7.8% 1.3% 100.0%
Source: Endline survey 2020

This distribution varies between the zones, most significantly in the Patuakhali zone where there are fewer farmers in the landless category, and rather more small and medium farmers. Satkhira has a higher proportion in the landless category, and fewer small and medium farmers.

The household survey 2021 showed the proportion of different types of households owning different type of land (Table 9.7). Almost all households own homestead land, but very few households in the landless category own any other type of land, while only two thirds of marginal farm households own cultivated land and 41% have ponds. The proportion of these households owning land has increased very slightly since the start of BGP. A higher proportion of households in Patuakhali own land, and rather fewer in Satkhira (Table 9.7). The average area of land owned per household is 133 decimals (0.54 ha), but households in the landless category only own an average of 3.4 decimals (138 m2) – see Table 9.8.

Table 9.7: Percentage of households owning different types of land

Land ownership homestead land cultivated land* pond fallow other land
2013-14 2020-21 2013-14 2020-21 2013-14 2020-21 2013-14 2020-21 2013-14 2020-21
landless <5 decimals 92% 94% 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%
marginal 5-49 dec. 100% 100% 66% 68% 40% 41% 3% 3% 8% 8%
small 50-249 dec 100% 100% 99% 100% 67% 67% 6% 6% 26% 26%
medium 250-749 dec. 100% 100% 100% 100% 83% 84% 10% 10% 51% 52%
large 750 decimals + 100% 100% 100% 100% 91% 92% 9% 8% 55% 55%
Zone
Khulna 98% 99% 64% 65% 35% 36% 4% 4% 15% 15%
Satkhira 92% 95% 53% 56% 28% 28% 1% 2% 21% 20%
Patuakhali 100% 100% 77% 78% 68% 69% 5% 5% 15% 15%
Total 98% 99% 66% 67% 44% 45% 4% 4% 16% 16%
* Cultivated land includes gher;Source: HH survey 2021

Table 9.8: Average area owned per household*

Land ownership homestead land cultivated land pond fallow other land Total land
2013-14 2020-21 2013-14 2020-21 2013-14 2020-21 2013-14 2020-21 2013-14 2020-21 2013-14 2020-21
Landless 3.2 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 3.4
Marginal 9.3 9.1 18.8 19.7 2.4 2.5 0.2 0.2 0.8 0.9 31.5 32.4
Small 13.5 13.6 113.4 115.0 7.6 7.6 1.7 1.7 6.1 6.1 142.4 143.9
Medium 22.4 22.5 332.5 333.5 12.5 12.8 8.9 8.1 20.3 22.4 396.5 399.2
Large 28.9 28.9 958.1 957.3 25.7 25.7 10.3 9.6 34.9 34.0 1057.9 1055.5
Zone
Khulna 10.3 10.3 67.8 68.7 4.2 4.3 1.3 1.2 3.8 4.0 87.4 88.5
Satkhira 8.2 8.1 55.3 56.9 2.8 2.8 0.2 0.3 6.4 6.6 72.9 74.7
Patuakhali 16.9 17.1 97.7 102.3 8.3 8.3 0.7 0.7 4.5 4.6 128.1 132.9
Total 10.3 10.3 67.8 68.7 4.2 4.3 1.3 1.2 3.8 4.0 87.4 88.5
* area in decimals. Average for all households in each category, including those who do not own each type of land.Source: HH survey 2021

Since the start of BGP more households, especially those with less land, have taken up land operation. Although the overall increase is small –from 84% to 88%, see Table 9.9 – the increase for landless households has been from 41% to 56%. More landless and marginal land owning households (and to a lesser extent small land owning households) are leasing in land, which includes sharecropping and other rental arrangements of crop and gher land, while more households in the medium and large categories are leasing out land.

Table 9.9: Percentage of households operating and leasing land

Land ownership farm own land lease in land lease out land lease in gher lease out gher Farm any land
2013-14 2020-21 2013-14 2020-21 2013-14 2020-21 2013-14 2020-21 2013-14 2020-21 2013-14 2020-21
landless 1% 1% 31% 43% 0% 0% 10% 16% 0% 0% 41% 56%
marginal 81% 84% 36% 49% 2% 4% 14% 20% 2% 3% 85% 89%
small 100% 100% 21% 30% 8% 12% 11% 19% 4% 6% 99% 99%
medium 100% 100% 8% 12% 25% 37% 6% 10% 18% 21% 98% 98%
large 100% 100% 4% 4% 52% 65% 5% 6% 22% 27% 100% 99%
Zone
Khulna 69% 71% 24% 32% 4% 7% 19% 30% 5% 7% 81% 87%
Satkhira 60% 62% 26% 35% 4% 4% 13% 18% 7% 9% 67% 70%
Patuakhali 86% 87% 33% 46% 9% 15% 0% 0% 0% 0% 89% 91%
total 77% 78% 20% 28% 15% 22% 9% 15% 9% 11% 84% 88%
source: HH survey 2021

The average area of owned and leased in and out land is shown in Table 9.10. For those households that farm land, the average area operated is 187 decimals (0.76 ha). Since the start of BGP the average area operated by landless, marginal and small land owners has increased, while it has decreased for medium and large land owners.

The average area farmed for all households (including those who do not farm) is shown in Table 9.11. This shows that more land is being farmed – increasing from an average of 118 decimals (0.48 ha) to 135 decimals (0.55 decimals. This is largely because more land is being leased (which includes sharecropping and other rental arrangements) and less land remains fallow. In 2013-14 leased land amounted to 43% of the total area farmed, it is now 52%. The average holding size in Patuakhali is larger, with those in Satkhira being smaller.

Table 9.10: Average area operated or leased out

Land ownership farm own land lease in land lease out land lease in gher lease out gher Total area farmed
2013-14 2020-21 2013-14 2020-21 2013-14 2020-21 2013-14 2020-21 2013-14 2020-21 2013-14 2020-21
landless 2.0 17.5 102.8 110.4 0.0 0.0 83.4 90.5 0.0 0.0 99.5 111.2
marginal 25.3 25.2 124.9 122.5 27.0 41.9 120.3 120.9 28.3 21.9 95.1 115.1
small 117.9 119.9 152.6 133.5 97.2 78.6 160.2 136.0 70.5 81.1 158.8 174.0
medium 349.9 355.8 194.2 167.5 208.2 208.0 177.3 160.7 194.4 182.2 294.2 282.2
large 948.8 982.4 124.0 243.0 589.2 577.5 914.3 1033.9 478.6 473.2 590.8 564.0
Zone
Khulna 75.1 75.4 129.3 125.6 56.5 64.7 121.7 119.0 44.8 48.0 224.7 207.1
Satkhira 59.7 71.5 72.7 64.1 37.2 30.0 168.6 152.3 46.8 38.7 217.1 219.1
Patuakhali 107.6 112.2 160.0 148.0 79.2 74.4 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 188.4 187.1
total 86.0 90.5 134.3 128.5 64.3 64.6 139.9 134.5 54.3 53.8 137.2 151.0
Area in decimals. Average area for those households farming / leasing each type of land.Source: HH survey 2021

Table 9.11: Average area* for all households

Land ownership farm own land Lease in land lease out land lease in gher lease out gher Net area farmed
2013-14 2020-21 2013-14 2020-21 2013-14 2020-21 2013-14 2020-21 2013-14 2020-21 2013-14 2020-21
landless 0.0 0.2 32.2 47.6 0.0 0.0 8.1 14.4 0.0 0.0 40.3 62.1
marginal 20.5 21.2 44.6 59.5 0.5 1.6 16.6 24.2 0.5 0.7 80.6 102.5
small 117.3 119.9 31.5 40.4 8.0 9.7 18.4 26.2 2.6 5.2 156.6 171.6
medium 349.9 355.8 14.8 20.1 51.6 77.4 9.9 16.7 35.8 38.6 287.1 276.6
large 948.8 982.4 4.5 10.5 305.2 373.9 46.0 66.9 103.3 125.9 590.8 560.0
total 83.4 85.5 35.3 47.7 10.6 14.5 15.3 22.8 5.1 6.5 118.4 135.0
Khulna 72.2 73.1 28.7 38.8 5.8 8.5 23.7 35.4 5.8 7.7 112.9 131.2
Satkhira 58.1 59.6 21.5 24.0 6.6 7.1 21.2 30.7 7.5 9.3 86.6 98.0
Patuakhali 106.0 110.7 49.8 66.5 17.6 25.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 138.2 151.8
* area in decimals. Average for all households in each category, including those who do not own each type of land;Source: HH survey 2021

Land leasing enables landless households, who have virtually no crop or gher land, to participate in farming. Marginal land owners, who own less than 20 decimals of cultivable land, are able to lease in land so they can farm an average of 102 decimals. On the other hand, medium and large farmers lease out some of the larger areas that they own.

Improvement in household income and asset[edit | edit source]

Changes in sources of income[edit | edit source]

Sources of household income reported by the sampled households in the household survey 2021, table 9.12 shows that almost all (94%) households reported getting income from homestead vegetables, 89% from poultry and 82% from crops. Non-agricultural sources are not so widely reported. A higher proportion of households owning little land report getting income from wage labour (both agricultural and non-agricultural), fishing and transport-related activities. More households owning larger areas of land report getting income from pond fish and, to a lesser extent, gher fish, leasing out land, agri-business, other business, jobs and pensions. Relatively few (55%) landless households report income from crops, compared with 84% for marginal land owners - with other categories being over 90%.

Table 9.12: Sources of income in 2021

Agriculture landless marginal small medium large all
Crops 55% 84% 93% 91% 91% 82%
Homestead vegetable 79% 97% 99% 99% 100% 94%
Field vegetable 17% 29% 39% 55% 55% 32%
Poultry 82% 90% 91% 89% 91% 89%
Livestock 57% 75% 80% 76% 76% 73%
pond fish 2% 40% 66% 84% 91% 44%
gher fish 17% 29% 37% 48% 44% 31%
agricultural labour 55% 40% 19% 4% 0% 33%
agricultural services 0% 0% 2% 1% 1% 1%
agric. machine rental 1% 2% 3% 8% 6% 3%
leasing out land 0% 8% 15% 52% 77% 13%
Fishing 31% 26% 16% 10% 6% 22%
other agricultural 1% 3% 4% 10% 22% 4%
agricultural business 2% 4% 10% 12% 8% 6%
Business 15% 23% 33% 34% 38% 25%
Labour 39% 32% 15% 6% 1% 26%
self-employment 4% 5% 6% 4% 4% 5%
job and pension 10% 12% 14% 27% 24% 14%
transport related 20% 12% 5% 3% 2% 10%
handicraft, tailoring etc 13% 8% 11% 8% 9% 10%
Remittance 4% 7% 3% 9% 16% 6%
other 10% 7% 5% 3% 4% 7%
n 195 210 218 250 139 1012
percentage of all households;Source: HH survey 2021

There have not been any large changes since 2013-14 in the percentages of households getting income from different sources (Table 9.13). More households now get income from homestead vegetables and livestock, and also from leasing out land. Slightly fewer households report income from field vegetables and poultry. More households are now getting income from all the non-agricultural sources, especially business and jobs or pensions.

Table 9.13: Sources of income in 2013-14

Landless marginal small medium large All change
Agricultural Crops 49% 83% 94% 91% 94% 80% 2%
Homestead vegetable 73% 94% 97% 96% 100% 91% 4%
Field vegetable 19% 30% 46% 54% 55% 35% -3%
Poultry 82% 89% 95% 92% 94% 90% -1%
Livestock 51% 69% 80% 79% 81% 70% 4%
pond fish 2% 41% 65% 83% 90% 45% 0%
gher fish 15% 28% 39% 48% 45% 30% 0%
agricultural labour 52% 39% 18% 4% 0% 32% 1%
agricultural services 0% 0% 2% 0% 1% 1% 0%
agric. machine rental 0% 2% 2% 6% 6% 2% 0%
leasing out land 0% 5% 11% 40% 66% 10% 3%
Fishing 30% 24% 17% 11% 6% 22% 0%
other agricultural 1% 4% 4% 9% 17% 4% 0%
agricultural business 2% 4% 8% 10% 6% 5% 1%
Non-agricultural Business 10% 20% 27% 27% 30% 20% 5%
Labour 38% 30% 13% 4% 1% 24% 2%
self-employment 3% 4% 6% 3% 1% 4% 1%
job and pension 6% 10% 9% 22% 21% 10% 4%
transport related 17% 9% 4% 1% 2% 8% 2%
handicraft, tailoring etc 10% 5% 8% 6% 7% 7% 3%
Remittance 3% 3% 3% 4% 9% 3% 2%
Other 3% 4% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3%
Sample N 195 210 218 250 139 1012
percentage of all households. Change is change for all households in percentage points, 2013-14 to 2021.Source: HH survey 2021

9.3.2 Average income by source[edit | edit source]

Table 9.14 shows the average income for those households earning income from each source. For the landless category, the highest amounts are earned in the agricultural sector from renting out farm machinery and agri-business, followed by gher and pond fisheries – but not many landless households have these sources. Most non-agricultural sources generate more income than agricultural sources, and overall jobs/pensions, business and transport are the most lucrative. For large land owners, ghers, agribusiness and crops generate the highest income from agriculture, but more is earned by those with non-farm business, job/pension and remittances.

Table 9.14: Average income for those households reporting each source

Agriculture landless marginal small medium large
Crops 44,520 46,925 72,384 114,846 203,303
Homestead vegetable 3,053 5,864 9,196 13,628 18,011
Field vegetable 32,197 31,462 37,134 47,164 60,126
Poultry 2,836 3,494 3,969 3,736 3,229
Livestock 13,226 14,443 23,870 41,802 42,496
pond fish 8,493 8,510 12,888 15,899 26,289
gher fish 47,324 45,176 69,797 99,071 212,475
agricultural labour 45,380 49,899 49,071 41,600
agricultural services 15,000 93,000 114,667 180,000
agric. machine rental 79,000 43,000 37,500 33,000 72,333
leasing out land 4,569 25,745 45,300 124,540
Fishing 13,975 12,685 16,568 12,696 11,813
other agricultural 11,000 10,643 23,625 42,313 38,483
agricultural business 56,250 120,000 117,909 151,000 212,273
Non-agricultural
Business 97,414 124,667 132,583 190,477 273,434
Labour 62,260 67,761 92,125 168,143 110,000
self-employment 73,125 86,900 93,692 123,222 140,000
job and pension 111,842 189,408 167,774 227,176 246,382
transport related 93,955 93,480 100,780 101,875 190,000
handicraft, tailoring etc 11,462 14,513 15,020 16,965 4,908
Remittance 46,750 58,800 126,286 168,391 224,091
Other 7,642 21,800 41,130 54,900 19,400
Average income per household, BDT per year;Source: HH survey 2021

Table 9.15: Average income for all households

Agriculture landless Marginal small medium large All
Crops 4,657 9,551 7,404 104,739 184,289 51,993
Homestead vegetable 2,427 5,696 9,111 13,464 18,011 6,849
Field vegetable 5,449 9,139 14,649 25,846 33,307 11,691
Poultry 2,327 3,128 3,623 3,332 2,950 3,134
Livestock 7,596 10,798 19,162 31,937 32,407 14,619
pond fish 131 3,404 8,454 13,355 24,020 5,328
gher fish 8,251 12,907 25,614 47,158 93,245 19,542
agricultural labour 25,133 19,960 9,454 1,664 - 16,121
agricultural services - 71 1,706 1,376 1,295 669
agric. machine rental 810 1,024 1,032 2,508 4,683 1,147
leasing out land - 348 3,897 23,556 95,869 4,405
Fishing 4,372 3,322 2,584 1,219 680 3,108
other agricultural 56 355 867 4,062 8,306 843
agricultural business 1,154 5,143 11,899 18,120 16,799 7,559
Non-agriculture
Business 14,487 28,495 43,789 65,524 104,259 34,225
Labour 24,585 21,619 13,523 9,416 1,583 18,546
self-employment 3,000 4,138 5,587 4,436 5,036 4,387
job and pension 10,897 22,549 23,858 61,792 60,266 24,188
transport related 18,791 11,129 4,623 3,260 4,101 9,969
handicraft, tailoring etc 1,528 1,106 1,722 1,357 459 1,386
Remittance 1,918 4,200 4,055 15,492 35,468 4,992
Other 745 1,557 1,887 1,757 837 1,503
Total income 158,315 209,639 278,501 455,370 727,870 246,206
Average income for all sample households, BDT per year.Source: HH survey 2021

Average income across all sample households, including those who do not earn an income from individualSources, is in Table 9.15. This shows how eachSource contributes to total income for each land holding category. The percentage share of eachSource is shown in Table 9.16.

For all land-owning categories, the largest singleSource is crops, which contribute 21% of total income (26% if field vegetables are also included). This underlines the importance of BG interventions in water management and agriculture. Although most households report generating income from homestead vegetables and poultry, the small amount they earn mean these are not importantSources. However, consumption of homestead produce can mean that a household’s expenditure is reduced, because less of their income is used to fulfil basic needs.

Table 9.16: Share of income for all households

Agriculture Landless Marginal small medium large All
Crops 16% 19% 24% 23% 25% 21%
Homestead vegetable 2% 3% 3% 3% 2% 3%
Field vegetable 3% 4% 5% 6% 5% 5%
poultry 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1%
livestock 5% 5% 7% 7% 4% 6%
pond fish 0% 2% 3% 3% 3% 2%
gher fish 5% 6% 9% 10% 13% 8%
agricultural labour 16% 10% 3% 0% 0% 7%
agricultural services 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0%
agric. machine rental 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0%
leasing out land 0% 0% 1% 5% 13% 2%
fishing 3% 2% 1% 0% 0% 1%
other agricultural 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0%
agricultural business 1% 2% 4% 4% 2% 3%
Non-agriculture
business 9% 14% 16% 14% 14% 14%
labour 16% 10% 5% 2% 0% 8%
self-employment 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 2%
job and pension 7% 11% 9% 14% 8% 10%
transport related 12% 5% 2% 1% 1% 4%
handicraft, tailoring etc 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1%
remittance 1% 2% 1% 3% 5% 2%
other 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1%
Total income 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Share from agriculture 52% 55% 64% 64% 71% 60%
Share from other sectors 48% 45% 36% 36% 29% 40%
Source: HH survey 2021

Households involved in agribusiness, machinery rental and aquaculture generate considerable income, but as not so many households have theseSources, their overall contribution is more modest. In total agriculture contributes 60% of household income. Important non-agriculturalSources are business (contributing 14%) and jobs/pension (10%).

Crops are also the majorSource of income for landless and marginal land-owning households, but for landless households agricultural labour and non-agricultural labour are each of equal importance. Jobs/pension and non-agricultural business are importantSources for households in the marginal category. Landless households get almost half (48%) of their income from non-agriculturalSources. As land ownership increases, households get a higher proportion of their income from agriculture (Table 9.16). Households in the large land holding category get 71% of their income from agriculture with crops (25%), gher fish (13%) and leasing out land (13%) being important sources.

Changes in total household income[edit | edit source]

Average income for each zone is shown in Table 9.17. Income for all land-owning categories is higher in Khulna than in the other two zones. The share of income from agricultural and otherSources in each zone is shown in Table 9.18. This shows that the share of income from agriculture is considerably higher in Khulna – with even landless households getting over 60% of their income from this sector. In both Satkhira and Patuakhali, most income comes from non-agriculturalSources. In Satkhira landless households only get 30% of their income from agriculture, but this increases substantially for households with more land as they are more involved in gher aquaculture. In Patuakhali, all land ownership categories get more than half of their income from non-agricultural sources.

Table 9.17: Household income by zone

landless marginal small medium large all
Khulna agriculture 109,458 141,535 238,309 353,613 630,504 182,004
non-agric 66,895 85,789 86,364 157,905 181,545 88,371
total 176,353 227,324 324,673 511,518 812,049 270,375
Satkhira agriculture 38,022 90,385 141,252 328,753 683,186 103,095
non-agric 87,019 141,286 76,327 107,552 137,984 107,270
total 125,041 231,671 217,579 436,305 821,170 210,366
Patuakhali agriculture 48,201 69,573 90,018 149,220 241,641 86,779
non-agric 86,014 90,341 122,379 189,070 277,057 115,641
total 134,215 159,914 212,396 338,291 518,697 202,420
Total agriculture 82,364 114,847 179,457 292,336 515,861 147,009
non-agric 75,951 94,792 99,044 163,034 212,009 99,197
total 158,315 209,639 278,501 455,370 727,870 246,206
Average income for all sample households, BDT per year;Source: HH survey 2021

Compared with the 2020 endline survey, there has been a very large rise in income from agriculture. The 2020 endline survey gathered income data from 2019 to avoid distortions due to COVID-19 and cyclone Amphan in May 2020. However, income in 2019 was affected by severe pest attacks and low crop prices, and the 2020 survey recorded a lower average income from agriculture than the baseline survey of 2017. Income from agriculture in the 2021 household survey was double that in the endline 2020 survey (Tk147,009 compared with Tk71,564), though there has only been a small increase in non-agricultural income (Tk99,197 compared with Tk95,042). Income may also have been boosted by completion of more BGP water infrastructure works. As a result, agriculture in 2021 provided 60% of the total household income compared with only 43% in 2020. These figures are in line with statements in FGDs saying that income from farming has doubled since the start of BGP.

Table 9.18: Share of household income by zone

Landless marginal Small Medium large All
Khulna agriculture 62% 62% 73% 69% 78% 67%
non-agric 38% 38% 27% 31% 22% 33%
total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Satkhira agriculture 30% 39% 65% 75% 83% 49%
non-agric 70% 61% 35% 25% 17% 51%
total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Patuakhali agriculture 36% 44% 42% 44% 47% 43%
non-agric 64% 56% 58% 56% 53% 57%
total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Total agriculture 52% 55% 64% 64% 71% 60%
non-agric 48% 45% 36% 36% 29% 40%
total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Source: HH survey 2021

Improvement in assets[edit | edit source]

Informal interviews show that with the increase of income people of coastal areas are likely to invest their extra income to improve their housing, buying or leasing-in agricultural land and other assets for their households, next to investing in their children’s education. Table 9.19 shows the average value of land for different zones and for different land owner categories. This has been increased compared to the baseline survey 2017. The unit value of land is higher in the Khulna zone, especially. As almost all the land owned by the landless category is more valuable homestead land, the value of land per decimal for this group is higher – with the lowest value for medium and large farmers who primarily own less valuable cultivable land.

Table 9.19: Value of land

Zone Tk per HH Tk per dec
Khulna 2,293,832 28,946
Satkhira 1,132,132 16,506
Patuakhali 1,895,802 16,616
Land ownership
landless 133,288 50,826
marginal 624,829 32,104
small 2,296,775 20,355
medium 7,449,604 18,874
large 23,638,026 19,617
total 1,864,604 20,945
Source: Endline survey 2020

Other than their house and different types of land, people also consider their poultry and livestock as assets. The number of poultry and livestock and their price have already been presented in chapter 7. Apart from these assets, the percentage of households owning other key assets is shown in Table 9.20.

Table 9.20: Key assets – percentage of households owning

Zone agricultural equipment motor vehicle non-motor vehicle motorbike / bicycle radio / TV cell phone
Khulna 81% 8% 17% 50% 45% 99%
Satkhira 49% 6% 5% 60% 55% 98%
Patuakhali 73% 2% 3% 12% 15% 99%
Land ownership
landless 48% 8% 11% 36% 34% 96%
marginal 68% 7% 10% 37% 33% 99%
small 83% 2% 8% 41% 39% 99%
medium 85% 3% 7% 50% 53% 99%
large 87% 2% 4% 50% 63% 98%
Total 70% 5% 9% 39% 37% 99%
Source: Endline survey 2020

Ownership of agricultural machinery, radio/TV and bicycles/motorbikes is correlated with land ownership, with the number of owners increasing as land ownership rises; the correlation is weaker for motorcycles and bicycles. Virtually all households own mobile phones, but relatively few own motor vehicles and non-motorised vehicles (rickshaws etc). Ownership of both motor vehicles and non-motorised vehicles is inversely correlated to land ownership, with a higher proportion of households with less land owning these assets. The reason for this may well be because some households who have little land have transport businesses that use these vehicles.

Compared to the 2017 baseline survey, there has been a considerable increase in the numbers of households owning agricultural equipment (up from 13% to 70%). There has also been a small rise in ownership of motor vehicles (2% to 5%) offsetting a fall in non-motorised vehicles (12% to 9%) as transport services become mechanized.

The average value of assets per household is shown in Table 9.21 This is the average for all households and reflects both the value of the assets and the proportion of households owning the assets. However, the last row of the table shows the average value of each type of asset only for those households that own the asset. Although motor vehicles are the highest value type of asset for those households that own the asset, only 5% of households have motor vehicles, so the most valuable type of asset for all households are bicycles / motor bikes as these are owned by 39% of all households.

Table 9.21: Value (BDT) of different types of assets – average for all households

Zone agricultural equipment motor vehicle non-motor vehicle motor / bicycle radio / TV Cell phone value
Khulna 5463 6080 2185 12132 2717 4658
Satkhira 2749 2425 1359 10979 2974 3949
Patukhali 3277 963 2074 6021 1159 4891
Land ownership
landless 1178 3784 2584 3094 1461 2339
marginal 2600 3925 1901 6229 1857 3593
small 5235 1092 1728 12797 2429 5575
medium 11728 8214 1610 26970 4679 9848
large 16927 2308 423 41577 6006 13871
Total 4013 3352 1941 9670 2225 4565
Source: Endline survey 2020

Mobile phones, owned by 99% of households, are next most valuable type of asset. Although at least 96% of households own phones in all land ownership categories, the value of these phones increases sharply as land ownership increases. This is because households with more land have more phones and each of their phones is more valuable (Table 9.22).

The types of assets shown in these tables are not the only assets, or even principal assets, owned by households. The value of house and livestock are mentioned in other sections of this report. In addition, there are other valuable household assets such as gold jewellery, furniture, and solar power systems, as well as other productive assets including trees and shops, and financial assets such as savings.

Table 9.22: Mobile phones

Land ownership % own value (BDT) avg. number value (BDT)/unit
Landless 96% 2339 1.6 1483
Marginal 99% 3593 1.9 1921
Small 99% 5575 2.2 2555
Medium 99% 9848 2.6 3749
Large 98% 13871 3.0 4565
Total 99% 4565 2.0 2305
Source: Endline survey 2020

Changes in poverty ranking[edit | edit source]

Sample households were asked to place themselves in one of four socio-economic wealth ranks in 2013-14 and in 2021. Table 9.23 shows that overall 70% of households said they were very poor or poor in 2013-14; this has now reduced to 58%. There has especially been a significant change in the landless land ownership category. In 2013-14, 72% of households in this category were very poor, now it is 39%. Because COVID-19 caused an increase in poverty again in Bangladesh, it is likely that the poverty ranking results would have even been better without COVID-19.

Table 9.23: Poverty ranking

Land ownership category very poor poor Medium rich total
Landless 2013-14 72% 26% 2% 0% 100%
2021 39% 55% 6% 0% 100%
Marginal 2013-14 18% 72% 8% 0% 100%
2021 5% 71% 21% 0% 100%
Small 2013-14 2% 41% 52% 0% 100%
2021 0% 28% 69% 1% 100%
Medium 2013-14 0% 9% 65% 23% 100%
2021 0% 3% 64% 30% 100%
Large 2013-14 0% 1% 27% 68% 100%
2021 0% 0% 11% 84% 100%
All 2013-14 22% 48% 25% 3% 100%
2021 10% 48% 36% 4% 100%
Source: HH survey 2021

Enterprise development[edit | edit source]

Data shows that a larger cropping area, improved cropping patters and increased yields have resulted in increased farm income. Informal interviews found that people are investing their additional income from agriculture in agricultural and non-agricultural enterprise. Over one fifth (22%) of the sampled households report having enterprises or some type of business activity other than farming (Table 9.24). This is a marginal fall on the 23% recorded in the 2017 baseline survey. Of these businesses, 23% are related to agriculture and 80% are non-agricultural; a few households have both types of business.

Table 9.24: Non-farm enterprises and businesses

Zone Percent of all HH

have a business

Percentage of all business
Agriculture-related Non-agricultural
business hire labour business hire labour
Khulna 25% 26% 7% 76% 13%
Satkhira 20% 34% 6% 71% 17%
Patuakhali 21% 12% 1% 90% 10%
Land ownership
landless 17% 27% 0% 74% 10%
marginal 22% 23% 5% 79% 13%
small 23% 23% 6% 82% 12%
medium 32% 23% 8% 81% 17%
large 23% 17% 17% 83% 42%
Total 22% 23% 5% 80% 13%
Source: Endline survey 2020

A smaller proportion (17%) of landless households have a business, while a greater proportion (33%) of medium owner households have a business. Compared to the 2017 baseline survey, there have been small increases in the proportion of households with businesses in the landless (up from 15% to 17%), medium (31% to 32%) and large (21% to 23%) landowner categories and falls in the marginal (down 25% to 22%) and small (24% to 23%) landowner categories.

Out of the total number of businesses, 5% of agricultural related businesses hire labour as do 13% of non-agricultural businesses. Taking account of the fact that there are more non-agricultural businesses, 22% of agricultural businesses, and 16% of non-agricultural businesses hire labour.

Table 9.25 shows the average number of family members and hired workers, and income generated per business that reports using this labour and generating income. This shows that a typical business in both sectors employs 1.2 family members, but where workers are hired, there are more in non-agricultural businesses (2.4) than in agriculture (1.8). Overall, an average business employs 1.3 household members and 0.4 hired workers These businesses generate significant levels of income (generally more than farm enterprises), with higher incomes for non-agricultural businesses.

Table 9.25: Employment and income – average per business reporting

Zone Agriculture business Non-agricultural business
Family employ Hired workers Income BDT/year Family employ Hired workers Income BDT/year
Khulna 1.2 1.8 109,246 1.2 2.7 133,468
Satkhira 1.1 1.7 85,911 1.2 1.4 137,561
Patuakhali 1.1 2.3 109,372 1.2 3.1 129,824
Land ownership
landless 1.1 0.0 67,966 1.2 2.0 113,828
marginal 1.2 1.8 105,490 1.2 2.6 116,124
small 1.1 1.5 107,776 1.2 2.2 145,182
medium 1.2 2.1 110,274 1.2 2.5 158,025
large 1.0 3.5 270,000 1.4 3.2 315,200
Total 1.1 1.8 101,875 1.2 2.4 132,912
Source: Endline survey 2020

Improvements in Living Standards[edit | edit source]

FGD participants attribute between 30% and 100% of the increased incomes to BGP interventions – but most common is the range 40% to 60%. Participants in FGDs said that they spent their additional income on a range of items. Improving housing and sanitation seems to have been a major priority, but households have also invested in more land for good housing, livestock and different agricultural and non-agricultural endeavors. Most FGDs say expenditure on health and education also has increased, and households have acquired a range of consumer durables. Increased production of both crops and fisheries have improved food security and fulfilled nutritional needs. Improved agricultural practices not only led to increased production and employment, but also the well-being of the entire family.

Changes in housing[edit | edit source]

Two indicators of housing quality are shown in Table 9.26. Respondents placed the greatest value on houses in Satkhira although they had fewer rooms. Houses in Patuakhali have the most rooms, but are least valued. Moving up the landownership categories both the number of rooms and house value increase. But the increase in house value is greater than the increase in the number of rooms, so the value per room also goes up – suggesting that quality of housing increases as well as size of house. Compared with the 2017 baseline survey, the number of rooms has increased from 2.2 to 2.6 and the average value of a house has more than doubled – from BDT 74,694 to BDT 155,916.

Table 9.26: Number of rooms and house value

Zone Number House
of rooms value BDT
Khulna 2.25 114,022
Satkhira 2.01 120,663
Patuakhali 3.26 93,624
Land ownership
landless 1.79 77,105
marginal 2.38 112,949
small 2.93 208,197
medium 3.53 331,847
large 4.50 436,942
Total 2.55 155,916
Source: Endline survey 2020

Table 9.27 shows almost two-thirds (65%) of houses have walls made of brick and cement in Satkhira, while in Patuakhali around 92% of houses have tin, mud or wood walls. Few houses (3%) now have grass, bamboo and other non-substantial walls, which is likely to be found in households who own little land.

Table 9.27: Housing wall materials - percentage of households

Zone grass, bamboo & similar tin, mud & wood brick, cement total
Khulna 5.3% 49.1% 45.5% 100%
Satkhira 3.1% 32.2% 64.8% 100%
Patuakhali 0.1% 91.6% 8.3% 100%
Land ownership
landless 5.2% 62.3% 32.4% 100%
marginal 3.3% 63.6% 33.2% 100%
small 1.5% 58.3% 40.2% 100%
medium 1.3% 44.8% 53.9% 100%
large 0.0% 48.1% 51.9% 100%
Total 2.9% 60.1% 37.0% 100%
Source: Endline survey 2020

There is some correlation between land ownership and more houses with brick and cement walls, but the large variations between polders suggest that local preferences are more important. House wall construction has improved since the 2017 baseline survey, when 9% had grass or similar walls, 57% had tin etc. and 34% had concrete.

Table 9.28: House roof materials- percentage of households

Zone concrete tin tiles grass etc. other total
Khulna 15.9% 81.6% 1.6% 0.8% 0.1% 100%
Satkhira 22.5% 32.3% 41.6% 1.0% 2.5% 100%
Patuakhali 4.8% 94.8% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 100%
Land ownership
landless 7.2% 67.4% 22.9% 1.3% 1.3% 100%
marginal 9.7% 77.9% 11.1% 0.8% 0.5% 100%
small 17.8% 75.4% 5.9% 0.2% 0.7% 100%
medium 29.5% 67.9% 1.9% 0.3% 0.3% 100%
large 38.5% 61.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100%
Total 13.6% 74.1% 11.0% 0.7% 0.7% 100%
Source: Endline survey 2020

Tiles are a popular roofing material in Satkhira (42% of houses), and also concrete (23%) is more widely used than in the other two zones, where tin is the predominant roofing material (Table 9.28). The use of grass, straw and palm leaves for roofing has almost disappeared. As land ownership increases, more houses have concrete roofs, but tile roofs are more frequently found on houses of those owning less land. Compared with the 2017 baseline survey, the use of concrete roofs has increased (10% to 14%), tin roofs are almost unchanged (75% to 74%), and tile and other materials have fallen from 15% to 12%.

Improvement in drinking water and sanitation[edit | edit source]

Table 9.29 shows that most water for domestic use comes from groundwater, with 32% of the households using shallow tubewells (STW) and 62% using deep tubewells (DTW). In Satkhira a significant minority use rainwater (5%) or otherSources (13%) - such as piped systems or purchasing from water vendors. In this zone there is significant contamination of groundwater by arsenic, whereas saline intrusion may also be an issue in some places. There is considerable variation between polders in both Khulna and Patuakhali in terms of the balance between STW and DTWSources – which may be due to the availability and quality of water in the deep and shallow aquifers. Households owning less land are more likely to get their water from STW, although the converse relationship (households with more land being more likely to get water from DTW) is not so strong.

Table 9.29:Sources of water for domestic uses- percentage of households

Zone STW pond DTW Rainwater other total
Khulna 34.8% 1.8% 62.1% 1.3% 0.0% 100%
Satkhira 39.0% 1.3% 42.0% 4.7% 13.0% 100%
Patuakhali 22.8% 0.6% 76.6% 0.0% 0.0% 100%
Land ownership
landless 37.5% 1.8% 53.6% 3.1% 4.1% 100%
marginal 33.3% 1.2% 61.2% 1.3% 3.0% 100%
small 27.7% 1.2% 67.3% 1.3% 2.6% 100%
medium 24.7% 0.3% 69.2% 1.9% 3.9% 100%
large 19.2% 1.9% 71.2% 0.0% 7.7% 100%
Total 31.6% 1.3% 62.3% 1.7% 3.2% 100%
Source: Endline survey 2020

The 2017 baseline survey recorded 88% of households having access to “safe” drinking water – this being defined as water from a tubewell (STW or DTW). In fact, safe water can be obtained from rainwater and otherSources (piped systems, vendors etc), but anySource that is not properly installed, maintained or used can become unsafe. In comparison the endline survey recorded 94% of households using tubewell water and 98.7% havingSources that should be safe (this being allSources except ponds).

Table 9.30: Sanitation-percentage of households with type of latrine

Zone unpaved,

katcha

sanitary

slab

pucca,

paved

pit

latrine

Unsan itary none total total

unsanitary*

total

sanitary

Khulna 40.3% 31.2% 26.4% 1.9% 0.0% 0.2% 100.0% 2.1% 97.9%
Satkhira 29.5% 28.3% 33.8% 7.8% 0.5% 0.0% 99.5% 8.4% 91.6%
Patuakhali 40.0% 47.7% 8.6% 3.7% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 3.7% 96.3%
Land ownership
landless 51.9% 29.8% 12.9% 4.9% 0.4% 0.1% 99.6% 5.4% 94.6%
marginal 42.0% 35.8% 17.8% 4.2% 0.1% 0.1% 99.9% 4.4% 95.6%
small 29.0% 39.9% 27.0% 4.0% 0.1% 0.0% 99.9% 4.1% 95.9%
medium 15.6% 40.3% 43.2% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 1.0% 99.0%
large 7.7% 50.0% 40.4% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 1.9% 98.1%
Total 37.5% 36.4% 21.9% 4.0% 0.1% 0.1% 99.9% 4.2% 95.8%
Unsanitary include pit latine, unsanitary and none. All others are defined as sanitary.Source: Endline survey 2020

Most households (88%) report that they wash their hands with soap before meals and after using toilet (Table 9.31). This compares with only 36% in the 2017 baseline survey. The huge increase in hand washing is probably -at least partially- due to the hygiene measures promoted after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Fewer households in Satkhira (79%) wash hands and hand washing is also quite strongly correlated with land ownership, with only 76% of landless households but 100% of large owner households washing hands.

Table 9.31: Wash hands before meal and after using toilet

Zone % of HH

Wash hands

Khulna 89%
Satkhira 79%
Patuakhali 93%
Land ownership
landless 76%
marginal 88%
small 94%
medium 97%
large 100%
Total 88%
Source: Endline survey 2020

Improvement in food security[edit | edit source]

The end-line survey enquired about food consumption and food shortages for the years 2019 and 2020. The reason to cover these two years was to find out to which extent the events of 2020 (cyclone Amphan and the COVID pandemic) had damaged food security (Table 9.32). Over 90% of households reported consuming fish, meat and eggs at least once in the month preceding the 2020 survey (and in the same month in 2019).

The proportion of households reporting consumption of fish was unchanged between 2019 and 2020, but there were marginal declines in the proportion of households consuming meat (0.4 percentage points) and eggs (1.0 percentage points). Sharper declines were reported in the Satkhira zone and for landless households. However, the average number of times households consumed these foods increased between 2019 and 2020 (Table 9.33) – by 10% for fish, 15% for meat and 9% for eggs. Although there is a good correlation between land ownership and frequency of consumption of these three foods, landless and marginal owner households (who consume less) reported larger increases in the frequency of consumption between 2019 and 2020.

Table 9.32: Percentage of households reporting consumption of fish, meat and eggs

Zone 2019 2020 change
fish Meat eggs fish meat Eggs fish Meat eggs
Khulna 100% 96% 99% 100% 96% 99% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%
Satkhira 100% 95% 93% 100% 93% 90% 0.0% -2.1% -3.4%
Patuakhali 100% 90% 98% 100% 91% 97% 0.0% 0.2% -0.4%
Land ownership
landless 100% 90% 94% 100% 88% 92% 0.0% -2.2% -2.2%
marginal 100% 92% 97% 100% 93% 96% 0.0% 1.2% -0.9%
small 100% 97% 99% 100% 95% 98% 0.0% -1.5% -0.5%
medium 100% 99% 99% 100% 99% 99% 0.0% -0.3% -0.3%
Large 100% 98% 98% 100% 98% 98% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Total 100% 94% 97% 100% 93% 96% 0.0% -0.4% -1.0%
Source: Endline survey 2020

Table 9.33: Frequency of consumption of foods during the preceding month

Zone 2019 2020 change
fish Meat eggs fish meat eggs fish Meat eggs
Khulna 16.4 2.5 8.9 18.3 2.9 9.5 12% 17% 7%
Satkhira 16.6 2.5 7.0 18.8 2.9 7.9 13% 16% 12%
Patuakhali 16.0 2.6 10.0 17.0 2.9 10.9 6% 13% 9%
Land ownership
landless 14.2 1.8 7.0 15.9 2.1 7.6 12% 15% 9%
marginal 15.5 2.3 8.5 17.2 2.6 9.3 11% 16% 10%
small 17.6 2.9 9.5 19.2 3.3 10.4 9% 14% 9%
medium 20.0 3.8 11.1 21.3 4.3 11.9 7% 15% 7%
large 21.4 4.8 13.9 22.9 5.1 14.9 7% 5% 7%
Total 16.3 2.5 8.8 18.0 2.9 9.6 10% 15% 9%
Source: Endline survey 2020

Just over three-quarters of the households (see code 4 in Table 9.34) reported they did not suffer any food shortages in the last one month. Of households reporting food shortages, about half said it only happened once or twice (code 1 in Table 9.34). A higher proportion (about one third) of households in Satkhira reported food shortages, with fewer (just over 10%) in Patuakhali. There is a strong correlation between land ownership and food shortages, with households owning less land being more likely to report shortages.

Table 9.34: Food shortages in last one month

Zone Not enough food 2019- % of HH Not enough food 2020 - % of HH
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Khulna 17.0% 8.8% 1.8% 72.5% 14.6% 7.1% 2.1% 76.2%
Satkhira 16.8% 13.7% 4.3% 65.2% 12.7% 15.2% 6.0% 66.1%
Patuakhali 3.6% 6.5% 0.8% 89.1% 4.2% 5.9% 1.1% 88.8%
Land ownership
landless 20.5% 17.1% 5.6% 56.8% 17.6% 17.9% 6.5% 57.9%
marginal 14.5% 11.8% 2.0% 71.7% 13.1% 10.0% 3.1% 73.8%
small 6.7% 3.1% 0.3% 89.9% 4.7% 3.3% 0.5% 91.6%
medium 2.3% 0.3% 0.0% 97.4% 1.9% 0.3% 0.3% 97.4%
large 0.0% 1.9% 0.0% 98.1% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 98.1%
Total 12.2% 9.2% 2.0% 76.6% 10.4% 8.6% 2.7% 78.2%
Code: 1-rarely (1 to 2 times); 2=sometimes (3 to 5 times); 3=often (> 5 times); 4=never;Source: Endline survey 2020

Table 9.35: Change in food shortage in last one month

Zone Change 2019 to 2020 in percentage points
1 2 3 4
Khulna -2.4% -1.7% 0.3% 3.8%
Satkhira -4.1% 1.4% 1.7% 0.9%
Patuakhali 0.6% -0.6% 0.4% -0.3%
Land ownership
landless -2.8% 0.8% 0.9% 1.2%
marginal -1.4% -1.8% 1.0% 2.2%
small -2.0% 0.2% 0.2% 1.7%
medium -0.3% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0%
large 1.9% -1.9% 0.0% 0.0%
Total -1.7% -0.6% 0.7% 1.6%
Source: Endline survey 2020

Table 9.34 shows data on food shortages for 2019 and 2020 and the changes between these two years are shown in Table 9.35. This shows that there has been a small increase of 1.6 percentage points in the proportion of households saying there is no food shortage but, of those reporting shortages, some more (0.6 percentage points) report these to be frequent (over 5 times in the month).

In the 2017 baseline survey slightly fewer households reported food shortages in the last month, but as these surveys collected data at different times of year, the data is not really comparable.

Table 9.36: Food shortages in last 12 months

Zone number Percent
Khulna 157 10.0%
Satkhira 140 14.3%
Patuakhali 28 2.0%
Land ownership
landless 160 20.5%
marginal 149 9.2%
small 16 1.3%
medium 0 0.0%
large 0 0.0%
Total 325 8.2%
Source: Endline survey 2020

A small proportion of households (8.2%) reported in 2020 food shortages in terms of not being able to have at least two meals per day at some point in the last 12 months (Table 9.36). A higher proportion in Satkhira (14%) report these shortages, with only 2% in Patuakhali and 10% in Khulna. The shortages are highly correlated to land ownership, with over 20% of landless and 9% of marginal owner households reporting shortages compared to only 1.3% of small owners and no medium or large owners. The fact that land holdings tend to be larger in Satkhira may help explain why there are fewer food-insecure households here.

The proportion of households reporting food shortages (less than two meals per day) during the last 12 months was slightly lower in the 2017 baseline survey – 7.2% compared to 8.2% in 2020. This applies more in Khulna 7.1% to 10.0%, but also in Satkhira 13.1% to 14.3%, and Patuakhali 1.6% to 2.0%. This may be linked to the poor rice crop in 2019 and, to a lesser extent, in 2020. However, chapter 6 showed that the cropping intensity increased significantly over the years and that crop production (yield) was again very good in the year 2021, thus it is likely that in 2021 food insecurity was reduced as compared to 2019 and 2020.

Overall, the increased agricultural and fish production, and homestead-based production have enhanced food security and fulfilled nutritional needs. The high value and other rabi crops, along with fish, provide cash incomes for the households. Increased crop and homestead-based production also increased employment opportunities (agricultural wage labour), especially for women from landless households. Improved agriculture not only increased agricultural production and employment, but also improved well-being of the entire family. Rural households are investing towards an improved quality of life, like better housing and other amenities, and better futures such as investing in new agricultural and non-agricultural endeavours and in their children’s education.

Notes[edit | edit source]

  1. Section B Introduction and Summary provides an overview of the studies conducted through the Blue Gold Program, and the studies and reports which were the mainSources of information for Section B.

See more[edit | edit source]

Previous chapter:
Chapter 08: The Outcomes and Impact on the Livelihoods of Women
Blue Gold Lessons Learnt Wiki
Section B: Development Outcomes
Next chapter:
Chapter 10: Coastal Infrastructure
Section B: Development Outcomes
Chapter 05: Outcomes and Impact from Participatory Water Management Chapter 06: Outcomes and Impact from Agricultural Development Chapter 07: Inclusive Development Approach: Outcomes and Impacts from Homestead Based Production
  1. Increased resilience against climatic variability: outcomes and impact of rehabilitation work on water management
  2. Organised coastal communities: outcomes and impact of institutional development
  1. Changes in crop agricultural production
  2. Change in cropping pattern and crop types
  3. Increase in Cropping intensity
  4. Increase in Crop yields
  5. Increase in employment through agricultural development
  6. Economic return of improved agriculture production
  1. Homestead vegetables production
  2. Homestead fruit production
  3. Commercial fruit production
  4. Poultry rearing
  5. Goats
  6. Cattle and buffalo
  7. Pond fisheries
  8. Feedback from FGDs on homestead production
  9. Problems of agricultural and homestead production
Chapter 08: The Outcomes and Impact on the Livelihoods of Women Chapter 09: The Overall Outcomes and Impacts on the Livelihoods of Coastal Communities in Blue Gold Polders
  1. Women’s role in economic activities
  2. Main Occupation of women
  3. Equality in food consumption
  4. Decision making regarding assets and land
  5. Mobility and participation
  6. Overall empowerment of women
  1. General features of coastal households
  2. Land ownership and land tenure
  3. Improvement in household income and asset
  4. Enterprise development
  5. Improvements in Living Standards
Blue Gold Wiki
Executive summary: A Call for Action
Section A: Background and context Section B: Development Outcomes Section C: Water Infrastructure


Summary


Summary and Introduction


Summary

Section D: BGP Interventions: Participatory Water Management Section E: Agricultural Development Section F: Responsible Development: Inclusion and Sustainability


Summary



Summary


Summary

Section G: Project Management Section H: Innovation Fund Files and others


Summary


Summary